MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase Ib/II dose-escalation study evaluating triple combination therapy with a BRAF (encorafenib), MEK (binimetinib), and CDK 4/6 (ribociclib) inhibitor in patients (Pts) with <i>BRAF V600</i>-mutant solid tumors and melanoma.

2017· article· en· W2738407951 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo A. Ascierto, Oliver Bechter, Pascal Wolter, Célèste Lebbé, Elena Élez, Wilson H. Miller, Georgina V. Long, Aurelius Omlin, Salvatore Siena, Emiliano Calvo, Mike Pickard, Ashwin Gollerkeri, Lance Wollenberg, Caroline Germa, Reinhard Dummer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEK inhibitorResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologyInternal medicineMelanomaPalbociclibClinical endpointPharmacokineticsPharmacologyCancerPhases of clinical researchKinaseCancer researchMAPK/ERK pathwayClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9518 Background: The benefits of BRAF + MEK inhibition (dual combo) in pts with BRAF V600-mutant ( BRAF V600 ) melanoma are known. Preclinical data supports inhibiting CDK 4/6 and BRAF + MEK (triple combo) to improve antitumor activity. We report safety and preliminary efficacy from a phase 1b/2 study (NCT01543698) of encorafenib (ENCO; a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor), binimetinib (BINI; a MEK inhibitor), and ribociclib (RIBO; a CDK 4/6 inhibitor). Methods: Phase 1b of this open-label, multicenter study enrolled pts with confirmed BRAF V600 advanced solid tumors. Escalating doses of RIBO 100 mg-600 mg QD for 3 wk on/1 wk off were administered with ENCO 200 mg QD + BINI 45 mg BID in successive cohorts (6 pts each) until the maximum tolerated or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was reached. Due to potential pharmacokinetic interactions with RIBO, the ENCO dose was lower than the dual combo RP2D (450 mg QD). Dose escalations followed an adaptive Bayesian model. In phase 2, the triple combo was tested in pts with BRAF V600 melanoma naïve to prior BRAF inhibitor treatment; the primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Results: In phase 1b (n = 21), no dose-limiting toxicities were reported and the triple combo RP2D was ENCO 200 mg QD + BINI 45 mg BID + RIBO 600 mg QD. ENCO AUC was slightly lower than at the dual combo RP2D. In phase 2 (n = 42), 59.5% pts had an ECOG PS of 0 and 43% of pts had elevated lactate dehydrogenase. The most common (≥5%) grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (26.2%), increased alanine transaminase (14.3%), diarrhea (7.1%), and anemia (7.1%). Ten pts (23.8%) discontinued treatment due to an AE, of which 4 were increased transaminases. The confirmed ORR was 52.4%, including 4 complete responses, 18 partial responses, and 15 pts with stable disease. Median duration of exposure in phase 2 was 9.1 mo (range, 0.0-21.6). Median progression-free survival was 9.0 mo (95% confidence interval, 7.0-11.1). Conclusions: Triple therapy with ENCO + BINI + RIBO in this small trial of pts with high disease burden was associated with responses in over half of pts and some evidence of increased toxicity. Clinical trial information: NCT01543698.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207